DECISION

 

Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Domain Administrator

Claim Number: FA2607002233842

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Tracy-Gene G. Durkin of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator ("Respondent"), Idaho, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <gvoke.com>, registered with DropCatch.com 914 LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 21, 2026; Forum received payment on July 21, 2026.

 

On July 23, 2026, DropCatch.com 914 LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gvoke.com> domain name is registered with DropCatch.com 914 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DropCatch.com 914 LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DropCatch.com 914 LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On July 29, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 18, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@gvoke.com. Also on July 29, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 19, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a global biopharmaceutical company improving patient lives by developing and commercializing advanced products across a range of therapies, including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and neurology.

 

Complainant is renowned for its development and marketing of GVOKE (glucagon injection) and GVOKE HYPOPEN (glucagon injection), the first FDA-approved autoinjector for treating very low blood sugar (severe hypoglycemia) in adults and children with diabetes. GVOKE HYPOPEN is a ready-to-use rescue pen that patients aged 2 and above can count on to bring very low blood sugar levels back up quickly.

 

The trademarks GVOKE, GVOKE HYPOPEN, GVOKE VIALDX, and are valuable assets of Complainant as identifiers of source for its glucagon products and related medical information services. In addition to other registrations for GVOKE and GVOKE-formative marks, Complainant owns multiple related U.S. trademark registrations and applications, the filing dates of which predate the August 10, 2024, registration date of the gvoke.com domain name.

 

The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Marks.

The domain name <gvoke.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's GVOKE and GVOKE-formative marks. The domain name incorporates the whole of Complainant's inherently distinctive --coined and fanciful-- GVOKE mark. The .COM gTLD in the domain name does nothing to avoid confusing similarity with Complainant's GVOKE mark, as top level domains are typically disregarded in the confusingly similar analysis.

 

Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name.

Respondent can demonstrate no legitimate purpose for registering the "gvoke.com" domain name without intent for commercial gain or misleadingly diverting consumers, as the term "gvoke" is a term coined by and federally registered as a trademark to Complainant for its glucagon products and related services.

 

There is no evidence suggesting that Respondent is or has been commonly known by the domain name.

 

A search of the USPTO online database did not yield results for any active trademark applications or registrations comprising the wording GVOKE, aside from Complainant's.

 

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark or to register its mark as a domain name.

 

Respondent and Complainant do not have any agreement to do business together.

 

Respondent has not demonstrated preparations to use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, there is no active commercial content on the page corresponding to the <gvoke.com> domain name, to the extent the domain resolves at all. Depending on the browser, the <gvoke.com> domain name results in either "[t]his site cannot be reached" or "gvoke.com is coming soon."

 

There is no explicit or implicit disclaimer on Respondent's <gvoke.com> website to indicate that Respondent is not associated with Complainant.

 

Respondent is not making any legitimate fair use of the domain name as there is no content on the page at all. Moreover, as "gvoke" is a term coined by and federally registered as a trademark to Complainant for glucagon and its related medical information services, there is no need for Respondent to use and register the term "gvoke" as a domain name in connection with any plain or ordinary meaning, as there is no such meaning.

 

Accordingly, Respondent has no rights on legitimate interest in the Domain Name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

 

Respondent's Activities and Bad Faith Acts.

Respondent misappropriated Complainant's marks and goodwill when it registered the <gvoke.com> domain name on August 10, 2024, more than six years after Complainant's June 22, 2018, constructive date of first use of the GVOKE and GVOKE HYPOPEN marks. As Complainant's GVOKE mark is coined and fanciful (the most protectable type of trademark) and associated with a 36% share of the glucagon market, Respondent cannot credibly assert that it was not aware of Complainant's GVOKE and GVOKE-formative marks at the time that Respondent registered <gvoke.com>.

 

Complainant's GVOKE mark is well-known and distinct to Complainant. A GOOGLE search for "gvoke" results in twelve pages of hits, all of which refer to Complainant and/or its GVOKE glucagon products. In addition, GVOKE is a fanciful term coined by Complainant; there is no dictionary or plain and ordinary meaning for it. Because the <gvoke.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's well-known and coined GVOKE mark, Respondent's registration of the <gvoke.com> domain name compels a finding of bad faith under Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

 

The <gvoke.com> domain name is being passively held in support of a finding of bad faith (presumably to drive Complainant to Respondent to purchase it).

 

Complainant's GVOKE mark is more than merely inherently distinctive, it is coined and fanciful and on the most protectable end of the trademark spectrum of distinctiveness. Furthermore, as a primary player in the glucagon market (a drug applicable to the vast diabetes patient population), Complainant's GVOKE mark has wide recognition among patient consumers and the healthcare community.

 

Respondent did not list its true identity when registering the domain name at issue, evidencing a bad faith intent to evade Complainant's enforcement of its trademark rights.

 

Use of a privacy or proxy service, or withholding accurate identity information, by registrants/respondents supports an inference of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the GVOKE mark.

 

Complainant's rights in GVOKE predate Respondent's registration of <gvoke.com>.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent holds the <gvoke.com> domain name passively.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for GVOKE is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

Respondent's <gvoke.com> domain name consists of Complainant's GVOKE trademark followed by the confusing similarity analysis-irrelevant ".com" top-level. The difference between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fails to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <gvoke.com> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4 (a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the <gvoke.com> domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name leads to finding that the domain name's registrant is "Domain Administrator" and the record before the Panel contains no competent evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <gvoke.com> or any relevant variation thereof. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is not linked to an active website. Instead <gvoke.com>, notably some 2 years after the domain name's registration, returns a system error message lacking any substantive content stating either "[t]his site cannot be reached" or "gvoke.com is coming soon." Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). 

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <gvoke.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without limitation, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

As mentioned above concerning rights and legitimate interests, Respondent's <gvoke.com> domain name is inactive as it returns an inactive webpage. Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar or identical <gvoke.com> domain name shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use.").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GVOKE trademark when it registered <gvoke.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's distinctive GVOKE mark and from Respondent's inclusion of such mark in the at-issue domain name. Respondent's registration and use of <gvoke.com> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in GVOKE further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gvoke.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: August 20, 2026